7th CPC Bunching of Pay – Point of doubts and Clarification

Whether one increment of 3%
constitute one stage or a difference of 3% among the pay of two officers

As explained in this Ministry’s
earlier OM dated 3.8.2017, the stages of every pay scale were well defined in
the pay structure under 5th CPC regime and the stages were not well defined
in the 6th CPC structure. Since there were no defined stages in the 6th CPC
structure and as pay in the running Pay Band in the 6th CPC structure could
be of any amount in the multiple of Rs. 10, as specific to an employee, it
has been very clearly brought out therein, drawing upon the illustration
given by the 7th Pay Commission in para 5.1.37 of its Report . that a
difference of at least 3%, the rate of annual increment in the 6th CPC
structure, was essential for counting of two stages. Therefore, for the
purpose of considering bunching, two Pays drawn in a Pay Band with a particular
Grade Pay, which are separated by 3% of the lower pay; are to be taken into
account, as explained in the illustration given in para 9(i) of this order.

2.

Whether the pay at Cell 1 of any
Level may be taken as first stage.

Bunching is to be considered with
reference to the consecutive stages of pay drawn in the pay structure
obtaining prior to 1.1.2016, as explained in these orders and as such a
reference to Cell 1. which is in the revised pay structure, is not relevant.

3.

Whether all .pay stages lower than
the entry pay in the 6th CPC pay structure the purpose of bunching.

This point has been amply clarified
in the aforesaid OM dated 3.8.2017. As mentioned in para 8(iv) thereof
, all pay stages lower than the Entry Pay in the 6th CPC pay structure as
indicated in the Pay Matrix contained in 7th CPC Report are not to be taken
into account for determining the extent of bunching.

4.

Whether benefit of bunching should
be given only where previous and current pay stages of the officers (specific
to each employee) are getting bunched and placed at the same Level in the 7th
CPC matrix without any comparison to any other officer’s pay as per para 5
and 8(iii) of this Department’s OM dated 3.8.2017 which stipulates that a difference
of 3% to be reckoned for determination of consecutive pay stages, specific to
each employee.

The position clarified in these
orders covers this poi nt. As explained in the illustration. the pre-revised
pay of Rs.46,100 and Rs.47,490 are considered two stages of pay, as these are
separated by 3% and these could be drawn by any two officers.

5.

Whether benefit of bunching is to
be given to a senior officer with reference to the pay of his junior officer
who is drawing less pay with the difference of 3% to the senior officer and
now his pay got fixed in the same Level as that of the senior officer.

The issue of bunching is not a
matter of pay drawn by a Senior Officer vis-a-vis a Junior Officer. As
explained in these orders, bunching happens as in the illustration given in
these orders and as such this is not related to the issue of seniority.

6.

Whether the benefit of bunching is
also required to be given to a senior officer where his junior’s pay has got
fixed in the same Cell as that of the senior due to the benefit of bunching
of pay given to the junior

7.

Whether the benefit of bunching may
be extended on account of bunching of two stages of pre-revised pay of a
Government servant alone.

It is not clear how two stages
drawn by a single Government servant are relevant for pay fixation on
1.1.2016, as only the pay drawn on 31.12.2015 is to be taken into account for
pay fixation on 1.1.2016

8.

Whether the benefit of bunching may
be extended only on direct pay fixation where the pay of two officers in the
pre-revised pay with a difference of 3% get fixed at the same stage in the
revised pay structure (7th CPC) or also on further bunching with next higher
pay stage due to grant of additional increment to an officer for bunching on
initial/direct pay fixation.

As explained in the illustration
contained in para 9(ii) of these orders, no such benefit is admissible in
such cases.